|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 17, 2015 19:46:39 GMT
It won't bring any of them back and it just keeps them grieving.Their lives have been ruined for all these years and they want to keep looking for answers which won't solve anything.Nobody will be prosecuted. Looks like Dukinfield will be don't you think? As Lakeland said Huddy, Duckenfield will almost certainly and rightly face prosecution from the ongoing parallel police investigation into falsifying evidence and perverting the course of justice but I'm not sure he will will face prosecution for the incompetency that led to the 96 deaths. His incompetency has been shown to be due to inexperience and a picture has been painted of a man unable to deal with the pressure of a escalating incident due to this. He has already stated that, in hindsight, he was not experienced enough to take charge on the day. Can he justifiably be prosecuted for that? I'm not so sure. Let's not forget, also at this inquest, it has been shown that there are others in authority that demonstrated gross incompetence that contributed to the tragedy. |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 17, 2015 20:29:11 GMT
Looks like Dukinfield will be don't you think? He'll be long gone if it ever got that far. He's 70 now. He has basically agreed that it was his fault that the gates were opened on his orders, he has perverted the course of justice or at least withheld information for 26 years. He should have been sacked 26 years ago no doubt he is getting a big fat pension funded by the taxpayers of this country, he should be prosecuted his pension stopped with immediate effect, the same for any others if indeed there are any (if the truth is allowed out that is), no one should be above the law least of all that are paid to do that particular job. |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Mar 17, 2015 22:12:20 GMT
He'll be long gone if it ever got that far. He's 70 now. He has basically agreed that it was his fault that the gates were opened on his orders, he has perverted the course of justice or at least withheld information for 26 years. He should have been sacked 26 years ago no doubt he is getting a big fat pension funded by the taxpayers of this country, he should be prosecuted his pension stopped with immediate effect, the same for any others if indeed there are any (if the truth is allowed out that is), no one should be above the law least of all that are paid to do that particular job. Couldn't agree more? Why should anybody in taxpayer funded employment found to be guilty of serious misconduct be allowed to collect pensionable years for that period of transgression? Also, Mr Dukinfield's evidence will have been guided by top barristers. So, you have to see his evidence in light of the fact legal advisers will have stopped him from dropping a real clanger?! |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 17, 2015 22:44:56 GMT
You might be right, but life is short and these people have already suffered for 26 years of this short life. They will never get this time back and no doubt there are still many years to go before anything is solved (if it ever is).The poor dead will never be brought back no matter how hard they campaign. If someone has committed a criminal act which has led to a death or deaths, they should not escape justice because the events happened a long time ago or because you think the victims families need closure ahead of justice. The victims' families' feelings are important but they are not all important. The best way to ensure that people in public life are less likely to fail to do their jobs properly in future is to bring to justice those who committed criminal acts of commission and omission even though it was 26 years ago. As it happens the families seem as eager as the rest of us to see some convictions. What are you going to call for next? Do you want the current enquiries into paedophile rings relating to MPs, Judges and Senior police in London 20 years or more ago be terminated AGAIN on the grounds that it was all a long time ago and the victims must be tired of waiting for justice? Won't you be pleased when senior politicians or Police officers have their day in court and, hopefully a spell behind bars? I think the point bexhillpotter is making is that we should shut down the criminal justice system with regard to killing other people because it won't bring anybody back. I'm not sure he's thought through the consequences of the state approved killing of other people, but let's see where he goes with the idea. Or maybe he thinks there should be a time limit so you can get away with it if you keep the corpses hidden for long enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 22:57:48 GMT
26 years of people doubting ( not all of course) the innocence of the fans. That must be hard for the families but at last the truth is emerging. The worse thing is it could have been any clubs supporters including us that day with those that were in charge. As for Thatcher well the cover ups and closing mines, docks when really there was no need sums her up. To be honest i should not have commented on Thatcher as i am too young to remember but i am going off what uncle david says.. He worked at hem heath by god does he detest her. I was an apprentice at hem heath in the early eighties alongside a bloke called dave wagstaff. He always bought to work a flask and sandwiches in a Tupperware box. Ask him if he remembers smudger  RIP the 96 and fuck thatcher. |
|
|
|
Post by Waggy on Mar 17, 2015 23:02:33 GMT
To be honest i should not have commented on Thatcher as i am too young to remember but i am going off what uncle david says.. He worked at hem heath by god does he detest her. I was an apprentice at hem heath in the early eighties alongside a bloke called dave wagstaff. He always bought to work a flask and sandwiches in a Tupperware box. Ask him if he remembers smudger RIP the 96 and fuck thatcher. Did his flask contain 3.5 spoonfuls of coffee |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 18, 2015 12:40:57 GMT
Looks like Dukinfield will be don't you think? As Lakeland said Huddy, Duckenfield will almost certainly and rightly face prosecution from the ongoing parallel police investigation into falsifying evidence and perverting the course of justice but I'm not sure he will will face prosecution for the incompetency that led to the 96 deaths. His incompetency has been shown to be due to inexperience and a picture has been painted of a man unable to deal with the pressure of a escalating incident due to this. He has already stated that, in hindsight, he was not experienced enough to take charge on the day. Can he justifiably be prosecuted for that? I'm not so sure. Let's not forget, also at this inquest, it has been shown that there are others in authority that demonstrated gross incompetence that contributed to the tragedy. Do you not think criminal negligence could apply here? A duty of care (from the police) most certainly can be established. And Duckenfield as the most senior person acting on behalf of the police (and indeed gave instructions that directly led to the tragedy) would have been responsible for that duty of care. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 18, 2015 12:49:23 GMT
As Lakeland said Huddy, Duckenfield will almost certainly and rightly face prosecution from the ongoing parallel police investigation into falsifying evidence and perverting the course of justice but I'm not sure he will will face prosecution for the incompetency that led to the 96 deaths. His incompetency has been shown to be due to inexperience and a picture has been painted of a man unable to deal with the pressure of a escalating incident due to this. He has already stated that, in hindsight, he was not experienced enough to take charge on the day. Can he justifiably be prosecuted for that? I'm not so sure. Let's not forget, also at this inquest, it has been shown that there are others in authority that demonstrated gross incompetence that contributed to the tragedy. Do you not think criminal negligence could apply here? A duty of care (from the police) most certainly can be established. And Duckenfield as the most senior person acting on behalf of the police (and indeed making the decisions that directly led to the tragedy) would have been responsible for that duty of care. I think both you and LL are probably both right. Duckenfield should almost certainly expect a charge or charges on peripheral matters such as perjury. His actions in opening the gates and not closing the tunnel are incompetence on a grand scale - but given that he had just taken over the job of match day commander with, if he is telling the truth about this, minimal or nil "on the job" training and minimal briefing by staff who had done the job, then I'd assume that CRIMINAL charges in respect of his incompetence would be more valid if directed at those who appointed him and who should (but didn't) have arranged proper training for him. |
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Mar 18, 2015 12:52:13 GMT
Do you not think criminal negligence could apply here? A duty of care (from the police) most certainly can be established. And Duckenfield as the most senior person acting on behalf of the police (and indeed making the decisions that directly led to the tragedy) would have been responsible for that duty of care. I think both you and LL are probably both right. Duckenfield should almost certainly expect a charge or charges on peripheral matters such as perjury. Has actions in opening the gates and not closing the tunnel are incompetence on a grand scale - but given that he had just taken over the job of match day commander with, if he is telling the truth about this, minimal or nil "on the job" training and minimal briefing by staff who had done the job, then I'd assume that CRIMINAL charges in respect of his incompetence would be more valid if directed at those who appointed him and who should (but didn't) have arranged proper training for him. Could the HSE have a part to play in this John ? People died as a result of his actions whilst he was at "work". |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 18, 2015 12:54:27 GMT
I think both you and LL are probably both right. Duckenfield should almost certainly expect a charge or charges on peripheral matters such as perjury. Has actions in opening the gates and not closing the tunnel are incompetence on a grand scale - but given that he had just taken over the job of match day commander with, if he is telling the truth about this, minimal or nil "on the job" training and minimal briefing by staff who had done the job, then I'd assume that CRIMINAL charges in respect of his incompetence would be more valid if directed at those who appointed him and who should (but didn't) have arranged proper training for him. Could the HSE have a part to play in this John ? People dies as a result of his actions whilst he was at "work". Possibly - ironically the HSE headquarters are in Liverpool. What I'm not sure about is whether the HSE's remit includes safety at sports grounds or whether that is handled by a different authority. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 18, 2015 13:03:23 GMT
Do you not think criminal negligence could apply here? A duty of care (from the police) most certainly can be established. And Duckenfield as the most senior person acting on behalf of the police (and indeed making the decisions that directly led to the tragedy) would have been responsible for that duty of care. I think both you and LL are probably both right. Duckenfield should almost certainly expect a charge or charges on peripheral matters such as perjury. Has actions in opening the gates and not closing the tunnel are incompetence on a grand scale - but given that he had just taken over the job of match day commander with, if he is telling the truth about this, minimal or nil "on the job" training and minimal briefing by staff who had done the job, then I'd assume that CRIMINAL charges in respect of his incompetence would be more valid if directed at those who appointed him and who should (but didn't) have arranged proper training for him. Interesting point John and I hear what you're saying - there is no doubt that somebody within the police is going to have to answer here but I'm not sure that Duckenfield gets off just because he wasn't very good at his job or because it was his first football match. What if it had been his third or sixth or fifteenth football match, at what point DO his actions become negligent? Once you accept the contract (and all the benefits that accompany that contract) then you become responsible for fulfilling that contract (and specifically the duty of care you are required to give) from day one, not from day 75 or from day 200, I would imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 18, 2015 13:04:00 GMT
Looks like Dukinfield will be don't you think? As Lakeland said Huddy, Duckenfield will almost certainly and rightly face prosecution from the ongoing parallel police investigation into falsifying evidence and perverting the course of justice but I'm not sure he will will face prosecution for the incompetency that led to the 96 deaths. His incompetency has been shown to be due to inexperience and a picture has been painted of a man unable to deal with the pressure of a escalating incident due to this. He has already stated that, in hindsight, he was not experienced enough to take charge on the day. Can he justifiably be prosecuted for that? I'm not so sure. Let's not forget, also at this inquest, it has been shown that there are others in authority that demonstrated gross incompetence that contributed to the tragedy. I've heard from 2 different people who were at semi-finals before this one, and both had similar incidents to the gate opening and overcrowding and being crushed, you only have to check out this video to see that lessons were not learnt, the list should go back years and in many organisations |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 18, 2015 13:21:30 GMT
I think both you and LL are probably both right. Duckenfield should almost certainly expect a charge or charges on peripheral matters such as perjury. Has actions in opening the gates and not closing the tunnel are incompetence on a grand scale - but given that he had just taken over the job of match day commander with, if he is telling the truth about this, minimal or nil "on the job" training and minimal briefing by staff who had done the job, then I'd assume that CRIMINAL charges in respect of his incompetence would be more valid if directed at those who appointed him and who should (but didn't) have arranged proper training for him. Interesting point John and I hear what you're saying - there is no doubt that somebody within the police is going to have to answer here but I'm not sure that Duckenfield gets off just because he wasn't very good at his job or because it was his first football match. What if it had been his third or sixth or fifteenth football match, at what point DO his actions become negligent? Once you accept the contract (and all the benefits that accompany that contract) then you become responsible for fulfilling that contract (and specifically the duty of care you are required to give) from day one, not from day 75 or from day 200, I would imagine. We will see Paul - but the level of "proof" in criminal cases is much higher than in civil cases and it would not surprise me if a jury were swayed by a defence based on what appears to be a total lack of training in the art of managing the problems of holding a semi final in a stadium which was not fit for purpose. Had Duckenfield been in the job for a year at the time of Hillsborough, I'd have expected a successful criminal prosecution for his actions up until, say, 3:00 pm that day. As it is I suspect that any criminal charges he faces will be based on his actions after that time. Time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 18, 2015 16:20:04 GMT
Do you not think criminal negligence could apply here? A duty of care (from the police) most certainly can be established. And Duckenfield as the most senior person acting on behalf of the police (and indeed making the decisions that directly led to the tragedy) would have been responsible for that duty of care. I think both you and LL are probably both right. Duckenfield should almost certainly expect a charge or charges on peripheral matters such as perjury. His actions in opening the gates and not closing the tunnel are incompetence on a grand scale - but given that he had just taken over the job of match day commander with, if he is telling the truth about this, minimal or nil "on the job" training and minimal briefing by staff who had done the job, then I'd assume that CRIMINAL charges in respect of his incompetence would be more valid if directed at those who appointed him and who should (but didn't) have arranged proper training for him. Exactly When he admitted "direct cause" the other day it was not news that was new or not generally accepted. There are a whole host of "root causes" just as important that need to be investigated. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 18, 2015 16:26:27 GMT
As Lakeland said Huddy, Duckenfield will almost certainly and rightly face prosecution from the ongoing parallel police investigation into falsifying evidence and perverting the course of justice but I'm not sure he will will face prosecution for the incompetency that led to the 96 deaths. His incompetency has been shown to be due to inexperience and a picture has been painted of a man unable to deal with the pressure of a escalating incident due to this. He has already stated that, in hindsight, he was not experienced enough to take charge on the day. Can he justifiably be prosecuted for that? I'm not so sure. Let's not forget, also at this inquest, it has been shown that there are others in authority that demonstrated gross incompetence that contributed to the tragedy. Do you not think criminal negligence could apply here? A duty of care (from the police) most certainly can be established. And Duckenfield as the most senior person acting on behalf of the police (and indeed gave instructions that directly led to the tragedy) would have been responsible for that duty of care. Paul for a charge of criminal negligence you have to show "deliberate and reckless action without reasonable caution " in putting a person or persons at risk of serious injury or death. This would be very hard to prove given his admitted incompetence. Not sure about the failure to give duty of care being aimed solely at Duckenfield as that would apply to other authorities, including the governent of the time. He will face charges for perjury, falsifying evidence and perverting the course of justice but doubt he will face charges for ordering the gate to be opened. |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 19, 2015 11:36:49 GMT
It would be good to see others considered for similar charges, including Norman Bettison.
|
|
|
|
Post by huddy on Mar 19, 2015 12:49:03 GMT
I found it very did he admitted everything.I smell that a deal has been done that will not see him prosecuted.
|
|
|
|
Post by huddy on Mar 19, 2015 12:49:31 GMT
Sorry.Very 'odd'.
|
|
